Allegations of “rape on false promise of marriage” have become a significant category of sexual offence litigation in India. Courts are repeatedly called upon to draw a difficult line between:
- Genuine deceit, where a man never intended to marry and uses a sham promise to obtain consent for sex; and
- Broken relationships, where two consenting adults voluntarily enter a sexual relationship that later collapses.
The recent Supreme Court proceedings in the SP vs DSP case – involving two senior police officers and the now-viral quip that the parties “should have matched horoscopes before entering into a relationship” – sit squarely in this debate. The woman has alleged sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage.
1. Legal Framework: False Promise of Marriage as “Rape”
1.1 Relevant statutory provisions
Most of the jurisprudence in these cases is under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) (now substantially succeeded by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for fresh offences). The key provisions are:
- Section 375 IPC (now corresponding provisions in the new code) defining rape and emphasising the centrality of consent.
- Section 90 IPC, which states that consent given under a “misconception of fact” is not consent in law.
- Sections 417/420 IPC on cheating, which are often added in “promise to marry” cases.
The core idea in “promise to marry” cases is this: if a woman consents to sexual intercourse only because she is deceived by a false promise of marriage, that consent may be treated as legally invalid (misconception of fact), and the act may amount to rape.
However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that not every failed relationship equals rape. There is a clear doctrinal difference between:
- a deliberately false promise made from the very beginning, and
- a genuine promise that later cannot be fulfilled, leading to a broken relationship.
2. Supreme Court’s Governing Test: False Promise vs Broken Promise
Over the last decade, the Supreme Court has crystallised a two-step test to decide when a promise to marry vitiates consent and turns a sexual relationship into an offence of rape.
2.1 Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013)
In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, the Court emphasised that courts must examine:
- whether a false promise of marriage was made at an early stage, and
- whether the woman’s consent for sex was directly induced by that promise.
The Court held that if the accused genuinely intended to marry but later could not (for example, due to external circumstances), this is different from a situation where there was mala fide intent from the very beginning.
2.2 Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019)
In Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh, the accused was already engaged to another woman when he promised marriage to the prosecutrix. The Supreme Court held that:
- a deliberately false promise of marriage used to secure sexual relations can amount to rape; and
- consent obtained through such deceit is no consent under Section 375 IPC, read with Section 90 IPC.
2.3 Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) – The Two-Proposition Test
The landmark judgment in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra clearly summarised the governing principles. For consent to be treated as vitiated by a promise of marriage, two propositions must be established:
- False from inception – The promise to marry must have been false, given in bad faith, with no intention of being kept at the time it was made.
- Direct nexus to consent – The false promise must have a direct nexus with the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act, i.e., she consented because of that promise.
In that case, despite a promise of marriage, the parties had been in a long-term consensual relationship for years. The Court held that the facts did not show a false promise from the very beginning and quashed the FIR.
2.4 Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019)
In Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court again emphasised that consensual sexual relations in a long-term relationship or live-in setting cannot be converted into a rape case merely because marriage does not take place.
The Court drew a clear distinction between:
- a relationship based on mutual consent and affection, and
- a relationship triggered and sustained by a fraudulent promise known to be false at inception.
2.5 Recent 2024 and 2025 Supreme Court decisions
In a 2024 decision arising from Chitradurga (Karnataka), involving allegations of rape on promise of marriage and forced abortion, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Pramod Pawar test. The Court reiterated that:
- consent must reflect an active and reasoned deliberation;
- to treat consent as vitiated, the promise must be false and made in bad faith; and
- the false promise must have directly caused the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.
In January 2025, another Supreme Court order again relied on Pramod Pawar and reiterated the same two-limb test, ensuring a consistent doctrinal approach.
3. Facts of the SP vs DSP “Horoscope” Case
3.1 Relationship between two senior police officers
The SP vs DSP case arises from Bihar and involves:
- Accused: an IPS officer who was then the Superintendent of Police (SP) in the district; and
- Complainant: a woman officer who was then the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) posted in the same district.
According to the complainant:
- After she joined as DySP in Bhabua (Kaimur district), the SP allegedly contacted her via social media, expressed a desire to marry, and pursued her.
- The relationship became physical, allegedly on the strength of his repeated assurances that he would marry her.
- Later, it was said that their horoscopes did not match, and the marriage proposal was withdrawn.
- She lodged an FIR in December 2014 alleging rape under a false promise of marriage and misuse of his position as her superior officer.
A crucial plank of her case is the alleged power imbalance – the SP as her superior, and the allegation that he used his official status and authority to induce and sustain the relationship.
4. Patna High Court’s 2024 Order
In September 2024, the Patna High Court quashed the criminal proceedings. It broadly reasoned that:
- the relationship between the SP and the DySP was long-standing and consensual;
- she had willingly stayed with him and engaged in physical relations over time; and
- merely because the relationship failed for reasons “beyond the control of the parties”, it could not automatically become a rape case under Section 376 IPC.
The High Court therefore held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be “wholly unwarranted”. The DySP challenged this quashing order before the Supreme Court, arguing that:
- the High Court ignored material in the FIR and charge-sheet;
- it failed to appreciate the unequal power dynamics between the parties; and
- it misapplied Supreme Court precedents on “false promise of marriage”.
5. Proceedings Before the Supreme Court in SP vs DSP
5.1 Initial approach to the Supreme Court (January 2025)
In January 2025, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah issued notice in the DySP’s appeal against the Patna High Court’s order. The bench noted that the case raised important questions on:
- the nature of consent in sexual relationships;
- the role of power imbalance where the accused is a superior officer; and
- possible misuse of authority in a workplace context.
5.2 The November 2025 hearing: Horoscope remark and mediation
On 4 November 2025, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan heard the matter, which has since been popularly dubbed the “SP vs DSP horoscope case“. Key aspects of that hearing include:
5.2.1 Allegation as presented to the Court
The complainant’s counsel argued that:
- the SP entered into a sexual relationship with the DySP on the assurance of marriage, and
- he later refused to marry her, citing that their horoscopes did not match.
5.2.2 The Supreme Court’s “horoscope” quip
At this point, Justice Pardiwala made the much-quoted remark that if horoscope compatibility was so crucial, it should have been checked before entering into the relationship, not at the time of marriage. The remark, made with a touch of humour, drew laughter in court and quickly became widely reported.
It is important to understand this line as wry commentary on the parties’ conduct, rather than a legal endorsement of astrology in criminal adjudication.
5.2.3 Scepticism about the “forced” narrative
When counsel argued that the DySP had been “forced into the relationship”, the bench expressed scepticism. Justice Pardiwala reportedly observed:
“Who would believe this? You are a DSP.”
The implication was that a senior, experienced police officer could not easily be portrayed as entirely without agency in a long, mutually sustained relationship.
5.2.4 Settlement talks and ₹5 crore demand
Counsel for the SP indicated that there had been prior attempts at settlement and that:
- the complainant had allegedly sought a sum of ₹5 crore as part of a settlement;
- the SP, now married with two children, claimed that such an amount was beyond his means.
5.2.5 Direction to mediation
After hearing both sides, the bench observed that continued adversarial litigation would not serve either party’s interest in these peculiar facts. The Supreme Court therefore:
- referred the matter to mediation;
- appointed Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, as mediator; and
- directed both parties to approach her to explore a possible settlement.
As of mid-November 2025, there is no final judgment on guilt or innocence in the SP vs DSP case. The Supreme Court has made strong observations and directed mediation, but has not conclusively ruled on whether this is or is not a case of “rape on promise of marriage”.
6. Astrology, Law and the Supreme Court’s Earlier Stand
The horoscope remark in SP vs DSP must also be read in light of the Supreme Court’s earlier discomfort with astrology being used in criminal proceedings.
In 2023, the Supreme Court stayed an Allahabad High Court order which had asked Lucknow University’s astrology department to examine whether a rape complainant was “manglik” in a false-promise-of-marriage case. The Supreme Court called the order “disturbing” and clarified that bail decisions must be based on legal merits, not on astrological assessments.
This prior stance indicates that the 2025 horoscope remark in SP vs DSP is best understood as a sarcastic or rhetorical comment on the parties’ choices, not a doctrinal move to legitimise horoscopes in criminal law.
7. How Does SP vs DSP Fit Within Existing Jurisprudence?
7.1 Long consensual relationships vs initial deceit
Reading the bench’s questions and tone alongside cases like Pramod Pawar and Dhruvaram Sonar, as well as the 2024 Chitradurga judgment, a pattern emerges:
- Where there is a prolonged, consensual relationship between adults with mutual visits, regular intimacy, and repeated decisions to continue the relationship, and
- where there is no clear evidence that the accused never intended to marry from the very start,
the Supreme Court tends to treat the matter as a relationship gone sour, rather than an offence of rape on false promise of marriage.
In SP vs DSP, the Court’s sceptical comment – especially “Who would believe this? You are a DSP” – indicates that it is scrutinising:
- whether the DySP’s consent was really solely driven by a promise of marriage; and
- whether the promise, if any, was demonstrably false at inception rather than a genuine commitment later frustrated by family, horoscopes or other factors.
7.2 Power imbalance and workplace hierarchy
The case is not straightforward because:
- the accused was the DySP’s superior officer, and
- she alleges that he used that position of authority to initiate and maintain the relationship.
Modern jurisprudence on sexual harassment and consent recognises that power imbalance can affect voluntariness. However, under Section 376 IPC, the Supreme Court still requires clear evidence that:
- the promise to marry was a device used from the beginning to obtain sexual favours; and
- the woman’s will was overborne by coercion, threat or deception, not merely by emotional involvement or romantic persuasion.
SP vs DSP may therefore turn into an important precedent (once finally decided) on how power dynamics within hierarchical institutions such as the police are evaluated when allegations of “rape on false promise of marriage” arise.
8. Key Takeaways for “Rape on Promise to Marry” Cases
From the line of Supreme Court judgments and the ongoing SP vs DSP proceedings, several practical principles emerge:
8.1 High threshold for criminalisation
- Court will not convert every failed relationship into a rape case.
- Prosecution must show clear initial mala fide intent – that the accused never intended to marry and used the promise purely as a deceitful tool.
8.2 Direct causation between promise and consent
- The woman must show that she consented to sexual intercourse because of the promise to marry.
- If she would have engaged in the relationship even without such a promise, the legal basis for treating it as rape becomes weaker.
8.3 Long, mutually sustained relationships are treated cautiously
- Where parties are in a relationship for years, travel and stay together, and repeatedly decide to continue intimacy, courts often see this as autonomous consent.
- Only very clear evidence of deliberate fraud will convert such a relationship into an offence of rape.
8.4 Broken promise vs false promise
- A broken promise made in good faith but frustrated later (due to family opposition, caste factors, horoscopes, financial issues, etc.) is generally not rape.
- A false promise given with no intention to honour it from the start can amount to rape, as recognised in Anurag Soni.
8.5 Role of power imbalance
- Where the accused holds a position of authority (employer, teacher, senior officer), courts do consider whether that power was misused.
- SP vs DSP will be closely watched for how the Supreme Court balances the agency of a mature officer with institutional power imbalance.
8.6 Astrology has no legal place in determining guilt
- The Supreme Court has already criticised astrology-based directions in a rape case and stayed such an order.
- The 2025 horoscope comment in SP vs DSP is best read as a sarcastic observation, not a legal test based on horoscope matching.
9. Conclusion
The SP vs DSP “horoscope” case is not merely a viral courtroom one-liner; it lies at the intersection of:
- evolving jurisprudence on consent and deception in intimate relationships,
- gender and power within disciplined forces like the police, and
- the Supreme Court’s attempt to prevent criminal law from being used as a weapon in private relationship disputes.
As of now, the Supreme Court has not delivered a final verdict on the merits. It has, however, sent a clear signal that in cases where two mature, highly placed officers engage in a long relationship, courts will scrutinise closely whether the facts truly satisfy the legal test for “rape on false promise of marriage” laid down in Pramod Pawar, Dhruvaram Sonar and subsequent rulings.
Once a final judgment is delivered in SP vs DSP, it is likely to become a leading precedent on:
- how power imbalance is evaluated in such cases; and
- how the false-promise test is applied when both parties are well-educated and hold senior official positions.
